Saradise Lost - Book 5 - Chapter 52: Troubling Palin Image(s?)

All of these blog entries are a direct challenge to Julia O'Malley's April 14th Anchorage Daily News op-ed, Make. It. Stop. In the three weeks since O'Malley wrote her opinion piece, several other articles have challenged her assertions, but the top photo seems to counter her claim, using a rather vague image of Palin from the side (with the misleading caption "Here is Sarah Palin, obviously pregnant, in March 2008" [she isn't], that we need to put this matter to rest.

The image at the top of this post, coupled with this one from April 8th, 2008suggest that O'Malley's contention that photographic evidence is definitive needs further consideration from O'Malley herself.

Looking at the March 14th photo reminded me that former political blogger Robert Dillon took a number of photos of Palin in Washington DC, on February 26th, 2008. I ran one of them at PA in the first week of March, 2008. It fooled me at first glance, and I wrote then, ".....pretty much pegs it, eh?"

On further consideration, Dillon's photo pegged nothing. This morning, I commented at Jesse Griffin's post on Novak's article:

Robert Dillon took some photos on February 26,2008 (less than three weeks earlier than the image at the top of this post) of Palin in Washington DC, while she was there during the Supreme Court's hearing of the EVOS case. I believe he took several of Palin next to Cordova Eyak artist Mike Webber's Shame Pole, which had been brought from Cordova to DC by Cordova fishers to support their public presence there during the USSC hearing.

I published one of the photos at Progressive Alaska back then, but Dillon took several.

He now works for Lisa Murkowski. When he got his job with Lisa, he took down his site. Possibly somebody knows Dillon and could persuade him to release all the images he took of Palin on February 26 2008 in DC. Maybe Lisa herself could encourage Robert - who is an excellent photographer - to come forward with the images Dillon has of Joe Miller's BFF.

Maybe somebody should encourage Dillon to revisit his February 26th 2008 photos of Palin. What do you think?

Until I see better evidence that Palin actually was pregnant on March 14th, 2008, I remain, once again adapting Joe McGinniss' term, "TriGnostic."

15 comments:

Anonymous
said...

O'malley argues that even if Palin produced a birth certificate as proof, it still wouldn't be good enough and just like with the Obama birth certificate, people would continue to question her. I think that's BS. The President actually complied with his birth certificate, short and long form. Palin hasn't produced the birth certificate yet, O'malley has conveniently forgotten that fact!

I think Sarah looks pretty bulky in that photo. It would be interesting to know the camera lens used and if there's any distortion.

Ultimately, though, it doesn't matter if we have 1000 photos of her 'looking' pregnant when there are photos of her at the same time or after (March 14 and March 26) without the pregnant belly. How can she explain going from a flat belly to a typical 8-month belly in 18 days or less?

I imagine you've seen the official National Governors Conference portrait, taken during the same DC trip. Enlarging the photo to zoom in on Palin shows her looking very slim.

Hey, Wasillans. Here's your chance to post all of your "Sarah Palin pregnant Jan. - April 2008" photos and make this faux pregnancy scandal go away! You can do it. Come on. Cough 'em up and put the scandal to rest....You know Sarah wants you to.

On the night Republican presidential contenders duked it out in South Carolina, Jon Stewart opened The Daily Show with a segment about Sarah Palin and Donald Trump, two potential GOP candidates who didn’t take part in the debate. So what are “the Tom Arnold and Roseanne Barr of the Republican field” up to

There's other photos of that event scattered around out there publicly. None any more or less revealing, I think.

If this wasn't discordant in some way, it never would have gone this far. Cognitive dissonance. This isn't a small handful of crazies that are out to get this woman, just 'cause. This isn't collective hysteria.An average, reasonably competent adult expects to see some tangible sign, in a woman in an advanced stage of pregnancy, carrying a 6 lb infant. In real life; in photos. That's simply how it is.